[sankofalist]Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes

Thu, 23 Jun 2005 22:38:18 -0400

> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

--B_3202411100_3706269
Content-type: text/plain;
	charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer

Cities may bulldoze people's homes to make way for shopping malls or other
private development, a divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday, giving local
governments broad power to seize private property to generate tax revenue.

In a scathing dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the decision bowed
to the rich and powerful at the expense of middle-class Americans.

The 5-4 decision means that homeowners will have more limited rights. Still=
,
legal experts said they didn't expect a rush to claim homes.

"The message of the case to cities is yes, you can use eminent domain, but
you better be careful and conduct hearings," said Thomas Merrill, a Columbi=
a
law professor specializing in property rights.

The closely watched case involving New London, Conn., homeowners was one of
six decisions issued Thursday as the court neared the end of its term. The
justices are scheduled to release their final six rulings, including one on
the constitutionality of Ten Commandments displays on public property, on
Monday.

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, said New London could
pursue private development under the Fifth Amendment, which allows
governments to take private property if the land is for public use, since
the project the city has in mind promises to bring more jobs and revenue.

"Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function
of government," Stevens wrote, adding that local officials are better
positioned than federal judges to decide what's best for a community.

He was joined in his opinion by other members of the court's liberal wing =8B
David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, as well as
Reagan appointee Justice Anthony Kennedy, in noting that states are free to
pass additional protections if they see fit.

The four-member liberal bloc typically has favored greater deference to
cities, which historically have used the takings power for urban renewal
projects.

At least eight states =8B Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine,
Montana, South Carolina and Washington =8B forbid the use of eminent domain
for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight. Other states
either expressly allow a taking for private economic purposes or have not
spoken clearly to the question.

In dissent, O'Connor criticized the majority for abandoning the conservativ=
e
principle of individual property rights and handing "disproportionate
influence and power" to the well-heeled.

"The specter of condemnation hangs over all property," O'Connor wrote.
"Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a
Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."

Connecticut resident Susette Kelo and others in the lawsuit pledged to
continue their fight. Nationwide, more than 10,000 properties were
threatened or condemned in recent years, according to the Institute for
Justice, a Washington public interest law firm representing the New London
homeowners.

"It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country,"
said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would keep fighting the
bulldozers in his working-class neighborhood. "I won't be going anywhere.
Not my house. This is definitely not the last word."

But Connecticut state Rep. Ernest Hewett, who as a city council member
approved the development, said, "I am charged with doing what's best for th=
e
26,000 people that live in New London. That to me was enacting the eminent
domain process designed to revitalize a city ... with nowhere to go."

New London once was a center for the whaling industry and later became a
manufacturing hub. More recently the city has suffered the kind of economic
woes afflicting urban areas across the country, with losses of residents an=
d
jobs.

City officials envision a commercial development including a riverfront
hotel, health club and offices that would attract tourists to the Thames
riverfront, complementing an adjoining Pfizer Corp. research center and a
proposed Coast Guard museum.

New London was backed in its appeal by the National League of Cities, which
argued that a city's eminent domain power was critical to spurring urban
renewal with development projects such Baltimore's Inner Harbor and Kansas
City's Kansas Speedway.

Under the ruling, residents still will be entitled to "just compensation"
for their homes as provided under the Fifth Amendment. However, Kelo and th=
e
other homeowners had refused to move at any price, calling it an unjustifie=
d
taking of their property.

The case is Kelo et al v. City of New London, 04-108.

___

Associated Press writers Matt Apuzzo in New London, Conn. and Susan Haigh i=
n
Hartford, Conn. contributed to this report.

___

On the Net:

The ruling in Kelo v. New London is available at:

http://wid.ap.org/documents/scotus/050623kelo.pdf

--B_3202411100_3706269
Content-type: text/html;
	charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
Supreme=
 Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes 
=
By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer 
 
Cities may bulldoze people's homes to make way for shopping malls or other =
private development, a divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday, giving local go=
vernments broad power to seize private property to generate tax revenue. 
 
In a scathing dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the decision bowed =
to the rich and powerful at the expense of middle-class Americans. 
 
The 5-4 decision means that homeowners will have more limited rights. Still=
, legal experts said they didn't expect a rush to claim homes. 
 
&quot;The message of the case to cities is yes, you can use eminent domain,=
 but you better be careful and conduct hearings,&quot; said Thomas Merrill, =
a Columbia law professor specializing in property rights. 
 
The closely watched case involving New London, Conn., homeowners was one of=
 six decisions issued Thursday as the court neared the end of its term. The =
justices are scheduled to release their final six rulings, including one on =
the constitutionality of Ten Commandments displays on public property, on Mo=
nday. 
 
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, said New London could =
pursue private development under the Fifth Amendment, which allows governmen=
ts to take private property if the land is for public use, since the project=
 the city has in mind promises to bring more jobs and revenue. 
 
&quot;Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted fun=
ction of government,&quot; Stevens wrote, adding that local officials are be=
tter positioned than federal judges to decide what's best for a community.<B=
R>
 
He was joined in his opinion by other members of the court's liberal wing &=
#8212; David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, as well a=
s Reagan appointee Justice Anthony Kennedy, in noting that states are free t=
o pass additional protections if they see fit. 
 
The four-member liberal bloc typically has favored greater deference to cit=
ies, which historically have used the takings power for urban renewal projec=
ts. 
 
At least eight states &#8212; Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine,=
 Montana, South Carolina and Washington &#8212; forbid the use of eminent do=
main for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight. Other states=
 either expressly allow a taking for private economic purposes or have not s=
poken clearly to the question. 
 
In dissent, O'Connor criticized the majority for abandoning the conservativ=
e principle of individual property rights and handing &quot;disproportionate=
 influence and power&quot; to the well-heeled. 
 
&quot;The specter of condemnation hangs over all property,&quot; O'Connor w=
rote. &quot;Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with =
a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.&q=
uot; 
 
Connecticut resident Susette Kelo and others in the lawsuit pledged to cont=
inue their fight. Nationwide, more than 10,000 properties were threatened or=
 condemned in recent years, according to the Institute for Justice, a Washin=
gton public interest law firm representing the New London homeowners. 
 
&quot;It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this coun=
try,&quot; said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would keep fighting th=
e bulldozers in his working-class neighborhood. &quot;I won't be going anywh=
ere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word.&quot; 
 
But Connecticut state Rep. Ernest Hewett, who as a city council member appr=
oved the development, said, &quot;I am charged with doing what's best for th=
e 26,000 people that live in New London. That to me was enacting the eminent=
 domain process designed to revitalize a city ... with nowhere to go.&quot;<=
BR>
 
New London once was a center for the whaling industry and later became a ma=
nufacturing hub. More recently the city has suffered the kind of economic wo=
es afflicting urban areas across the country, with losses of residents and j=
obs. 
 
City officials envision a commercial development including a riverfront hot=
el, health club and offices that would attract tourists to the Thames riverf=
ront, complementing an adjoining Pfizer Corp. research center and a proposed=
 Coast Guard museum. 
 
New London was backed in its appeal by the National League of Cities, which=
 argued that a city's eminent domain power was critical to spurring urban re=
newal with development projects such Baltimore's Inner Harbor and Kansas Cit=
y's Kansas Speedway. 
 
Under the ruling, residents still will be entitled to &quot;just compensati=
on&quot; for their homes as provided under the Fifth Amendment. However, Kel=
o and the other homeowners had refused to move at any price, calling it an u=
njustified taking of their property. 
 
The case is Kelo et al v. City of New London, 04-108. 
 
___ 
 
Associated Press writers Matt Apuzzo in New London, Conn. and Susan Haigh i=
n Hartford, Conn. contributed to this report. 
 
___ 
 
On the Net: 
 
The ruling in Kelo v. New London is available at: 
 
<a href=3D"http://wid.ap.org/documents/scotus/050623kelo.pdf">http://wid.ap.o=
rg/documents/scotus/050623kelo.pdf</a> 
 

</BODY>
</HTML>

--B_3202411100_3706269--